Lurker > Nemu

I think it would definitely mean a lot of horrible trends affecting groups targeted by bigoted evangelicals, but the position doesn't really carry enough power to turn the country into an instant hellscape.

I dont like the idea of encouraging unhealthy parasocial relationships, so I wouldnt be ok with anything where theres direct private interaction with fans for money. If its more something akin to idol worship, I wouldnt care as much.

If I can scan and bag it faster than waiting, yes. If it would take me longer, then I'm fine waiting.

It depends on the definition of fine and the level of abuse, but I'd believe the majority of people come out without any major trauma or anything. If they're trying to use it to justify abusing more children, then they're just fucked in the head.

Not at all. It always seems extremely confusing. Like I can understand if someone has active grandparents or great grandparents, who still live in their country of origin, and they actually have visited that country, but the people who sort of pick and choose some arbitrary heritage point and act like it means anything seem to be compensating for something.

I can understand not thinking the paint is a big deal, but I dont get simping for the paint. Its just so ugly.

CrimsonGear80 posted...

any solution you can come up with will just be another way to guide the player that is no different from yellow paint.

It's weird that you don't consider any possible midpoint. Plenty of games have guidance and accessibility options that are much less in your face. You don't need to inherently cater to the wandering child or game journalist. You just need to make sure you have options that can cater to them, if needed.

CrimsonGear80 posted...

people who complain about these kinds of visual aids don't seem to realize they were put there because they had actual people play the games and realized they needed them...

And you can have a midpoint so those visual aids can help people without making the rest of the players feel talked down to. Like with God of War, there were clips where the player wasn't even given a full minute before being told the answer, despite there being several different difficulty levels presented to the player. That was a case of them being too handholdy instead of catering to the needs of each kind of player.

The main thing is to have environments that naturally guide players, but from there you can have non-ugly markings if needed, or just have an accessibility option that activates if the player lingers for X minutes that can then be turned off.

It was definitely quite overhyped, but I imagine it's gained enough traction that it'll be around for a while. The dev seems to have an issue with not actually finishing games, but seems like modding is pretty easy.

CrimsonGear80 posted...

people who complain about these kinds of visual aids don't seem to realize they were put there because they had actual people play the games and realized they needed them...

There are ways to make visual aids that fit into the environment. Yellow paint is like God of War's excessive verbal "hints," lazy and way too handholdy to the point of patronization. You can have a midpoint between that, or you can have accessibility options for those who really are completely lost without them.

Yeah, there should be a maximum age for government officials across the board. Even setting it high at 80 to prevent another wheelchair-bound, barely cognizant puppet from being wheeled around would be better than nothing.

It's definitely a very ugly trend that could be done in a number of more aesthetically pleasing ways, and for some reason, traveling painters are more immersion breaking than ancient dungeons having lit lanterns. Ideally, you'd want to naturally guide the player through better design, but I'd otherwise rather just see something more gameplay-related, like having intractable objects flash. Making it a weird in-universe thing doesn't make it more immersive if it just looks silly.

I really don't get what started that trend. Many games previously had been able to lead the player without stupidly obvious markings. While we're dealing with more realistic settings now, you can still prep the player for what to look for and make sure you don't double up on things that look climbable.

Mentally, Trump seems fucking insane. Biden seems to slip between alert and witty and doddering old man way too frequently.

Physically, Biden seems to be normal for his age, which is still too fucking old to be in office. Trump seems one brisk jog away from keeling over. Neither should be in office, but Biden is still the better one by far.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

People within individual countries cannot even cooperate to the point of fixing all their issues, so an altruistic global community is pretty much an imaginary utopia from where we currently stand.

In the sense that we could hypothetically support the entire population of the planet in an imaginary utopia, no. In the sense that we dont have a system to properly support the entire population of the planet, yes.

It's really annoying for following anything with a lot of people. If it's just a small group of less than 20 users, it's not much different from a normal forum experience.

ellis123 posted...

There are hundreds of districts, only one of which is feudal Japan.

We only know of the main one and Reverse London, which is the "West Branch," and it doesn't seem to fulfill the same purpose. The main Soul Society has the main city and various districts, all of which are based on feudal Japan. It's really just that Kubo sucks at worldbuilding, so none of it really makes much sense.

Seems like everyone goes to Soul Society? It doesn't seem like Reverse London houses an afterlife. It's more of just an alternate realm where strong people live amongst the Dragons.

The biggest thing is that he easily could have written it in such a way that it made sense, relative to the situation. The idea that "no depiction of anything that could considered child abuse, no matter how small or innocuous, should ever be trivialized as a joke" is a perfectly justifiable stance, but he just put it out into the world in the most moronic way possible. For a more reasonable take, he could have said his stance, compared it to something like Bart and Homer in the Simpsons, explained his trauma and how it might have affected him as a kid, and that would have been that.

No. I cannot stand service people who constantly try to talk. I'm here to get my haircut, not have a chat. I won't hold it against them to try, seeing as a lot of people like to chat the entire time, but it gets really annoying if they keep trying even after it's clear I have no interest.

Bubbagump posted...

Actually, I completely agree. It doesn't give him free-reign to lash out, to name call or anything like that. I also agree, he would benefit from better coping strategies or counseling. These are extremely valid points! What I take issue with is people lashing out in response with their own hateful responses. I think there's a difference between recognizing that someone has a trauma-based reaction and disagreeing with it, saying he went too far, versus straight up belittling him, name-calling, and otherwise being hateful. There is plenty of space to disagree with someone and not resort to hateful attacks. Wil Wheaton chose not to do this. But that doesn't mean he deserves all the hateful comments right back at him. One reaction is coming from a place of trauma and need for therapy. Another reaction is coming from being an anonymous online persona and hating on a person (Wil) who's popular to hate on. I'm gonna go back to my first comment. Let Wil have his moment, recognizing it's based in trauma, and be the bigger person and not resort to hateful comebacks.

I think the main thing is that it's so insanely overblown in proportion to the "incident" that it's comical in its own right, irrespective of the reasoning behind it. You can give some leeway when someone has an emotional episode, but that only goes so far.

If that was portrayed on the actual show, I could understand that meltdown, but it was literally 3 seconds of bad acting on an adult focused news show.

I'd imagine the biggest factor is that it attracted a lot of Chris-chan-like people who lack a filter and make their sexual fetishes into a personality trait. I assume most fandoms have a similar level of deviancy, but the majority keep it to their particular niche circles.

Its definitely something that should remain a very strict process to avoid situations like in Canada where they offered to end some disabled persons life instead of giving them the assistance they needed, but otherwise being able to end your suffering on your own terms is definitely good.

I remember that being peak disappointment as a kid. I don't know what they were thinking with that, coming off the 10/10 that was the first game. They did better in the DS game, but it still failed to live up to the original. Then they failed again with the 3DS game.

LightningThief posted...

Demanding everyone to pay you a voluntary tip you feel entitled to regardless of the person's salary being less than yours very much has everything to do with this discussion.

You just find it uncomfortable to talk about or recognize.

You're basically just arguing against tips existing at this point, which is like near universal in this thread. Nothing about that justifies being a non-tipping asshole. So, while I abhor the whole "they'll spit in your food" nonsense some people spout, I hope you get horrible service befitting your refusal, if you practice what you preach.

DeadlyNinjaBees posted...

Anytime someone uses the term strawman people know you can be taken less seriously. Its a buzzword for people with limited arguments. We all know it at this point.

He's literally trying to reframe the argument from some sappy "think about these irrelevant people" angle that has nothing to do with anything and claim some nonsense that my lack of engagement with it means XYZ. If that's not strawmanning, then it's some "appeal to X" nonsense.

LightningThief posted...

Thanks for proving my point again in the irony of you calling anyone an asshole. Your entire argument boils down to ignoring tipped workers demanding the less unfortunate to tip them or take a vow of suffering.

Keep up with the strawman. It's a really strong argument without any flaws.

LightningThief posted...

It's not a strawman just because it makes you uncomfortable to recognize the waitress making more than a lot of essential non tipped hard workers, yet demand those who make less than they do, to tip the waiter or take of vow of suffering.

But again, fuck those non tipped workers making less than the waitress right? You don't want to talk about them because it's inconvenient to acknowledge many of these tipped workers demand people less unfortunate than them to still tip them.

Your irrelevant soapboxing means nothing. You're just rambling for the sake of rambling at this point.

It's weird when people downplay how out of sorts Biden gets at times. He's miles better than Trump, who seems to be literally insane at this point, but he's still in confused old man mode way too often for a world leader.

LightningThief posted...

Says the guy justifying his own asshole behavior and logic.

Yes, continue with your strawman about unrelated jobs or whatever point you think you have.

LightningThief posted...

Thanks for proving my point.

You have no point. You're just trying to justify the behavior of assholes who don't tip. It would be one thing if this was a discussion of people who want tipping culture vs people who don't, but I'm pretty sure nearly everyone here is against it. They're also against assholes who don't tip for arbitrary reasons.

LightningThief posted...

The only assholes are the ones that hold waitress/server/waiter on a mile high pedestal, and not giving a damn those same waiters likely.... do not tip the many essential workers they get service from who make less than they do.

The waitress isn't any more special than the person who does janitorial work, pushes carts all day, bags your groceries, stock the shelves you get your essentials for, and so much more..... and yet take home less pay than tipped workers.

Apples and oranges. One service literally gets by on tips. The rest don't. Whataboutism has no place in this discussion. If you eat out, abide by the social contract. If you don't want to, don't eat out. If you want change, then work towards it in small or big ways. It's extraordinarily simple. Stiffing the staff just makes you an asshole.

LightningThief posted...

Earing out is a luxury that if a poor person wants to spend they can legally spend their their money however they legally want to.

Your argument is hypocrisy and elitism at best.

Not to mention not even grasping the irony of talking about a luxury. Tips are a luxury as well, that no one is entitled to.

There's no legal mandate for it, but it makes you look like an absolute asshole. I'd imagine a restaurant could probably ban you for it as well, right to withhold service and all that.

LightningThief posted...

People keep saying this, and don't realize it's a terrible argument. It's hypocrisy and elitism at best.

Eating out is an expensive luxury, even without tipping. If someone cannot afford an extra 10-20%, they should be conserving their funds by eating economically. Tipping should be abolished, but please don't act like people are trying to conserve money by paying 5 times as much for something they could cook at home, get as a TV dinner, or get from a cheaper fast food place.

Neutral to big nope depending on if it's porn or some kind of random shock image. While not disgusting (generally), it's nothing I want literally or metaphorically shoved in my face.

DeadlyNinjaBees posted...

*To have control over their own money that they worked for.

If you can't afford to tip, you shouldn't be eating out in the first place.

JVillJags posted...

The server is wrong. The customer tips the same way I do. They use the tip to round out the bill. Sometimes the tip ends up being huge and sometimes it's small. But as long as it rounds out to a good looking number it's fine. I have friends that calculate the tip with their phone. I think that's worse.

That's a horrible way to tip if it ends up way below. You can use common sense to at least get into the proper ballpark.

I only vaguely remember the details, but pretty sure it's a pretty heavy fair, next from how fucked up the kid was and how little they did to try to curb it. It's not like this was a case of a normal-acting child going off the deep end without any warning.

Self-checkout is only bad if there's a lack of cashiers for people with large loads. Tipping culture is always bad and should be phased out for proper hourly pay and higher normal prices. Even if the price is literally the same, I wouldn't care.

It's amazing the lengths that people go to try to justify being cheapskates.

I generally do 10 over everywhere, unless it feels unsafe. I really don't care if people do just the speed limit, but I wish assholes would learn how to keep a consistent speed on normal condition roads. Little is more infuriating than 40, 38, 37, 39, 40, 38, 40, etc.

pazzy posted...

So are you. As it stands, it's not a bad tip. It's especially dumb, because I'm general it's not a low amount of money, so being a bitch about it is way worse.

And it's still a reasonable tip. The tipping culture demanding progressively more is the exact reason I refuse to bother with these places.

The customer is not the villain here, and anyone that would paint them out to be is the reason tipping culture won't die.

No, by all metrics, it's a cheap-ass tip. She could have made the same or more on a table that spent half as much. Arguing what you think a fair tip would be in a more ideal world isn't the same as arguing about the reality of what they did tip in relation to the normal expected industry standard that most people agree to pay.

pazzy posted...

Doubtful. What we saw on there was presumably an order that could have been by one person. And if it was multiple people, for all you know one could have tipped with a card and the others with cash. They got a tip, it wasn't bad in general. And they were still unsatisfied that it wasn't enough. This showcases the entire problem here.

You're making several leaps in logic that don't go with the situation as presented. I don't put it past attention hogs on social media to make shit up, but, as presented, the tip for the service was way too low, based on normal industry standards. Any server would be completely justified in being miffed by that. I don't agree with shaming on the internet for it. It's just something you bitch about with coworkers and move on with your day.

Hating tipping culture is fine. Tipping culture sucks. Until tipping culture is hopefully eradicated, servers should be given fair tips, unless the service is absolute garbage.

pazzy posted...

Which doesn't change anything that's said.

If the server works in a standard chain restaurant, they're probably seeing $100 tabs frequently, is the point. You only need a four person party ordering appetizers and a few drinks to reach that.

pazzy posted...

Yes. It probably would be because people don't typically order $100 meals.

Even a mid-level restaurant can be looking at $25-$50 a head when factoring in everything, especially if alcohol is involved. Though again, it depends on the restaurant. A cheap breakfast diner is probably going to be closer to $8-$15 a head.

pazzy posted...

That makes literally no sense with what I said.

You said that $15.86 is likely the largest tip the server received. If the server served even one single $100 table and was paid a standard 20%, the server would have gotten more. It depends on the restaurant, but that could easily be one of the smaller tips given.

pazzy posted...

Oh yes, stiffs them by giving them more money than probably anyone else she served that night.

What? The server would make more money on a standard tip from a $100 invoice.

pazzy posted...

And there isn't anything about fighting a system. It's stupid that if I order a bottle of liquor for $60 and that's the only thing I get, I'm expected to pay $12, but if I buy something for $10, suddenly $2 is fine. Again, this garbage is the reason I don't eat out. Screw people that think that me buying more expensive stuff means their tip should be more.

Oh yes, the whole thing is dumb, but anyone who chooses to participate and stiffs the servers is just an asshole. Not participating is the correct answer for anyone vehemently against it.